Hi,
I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can see
so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the first
implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you
just take in account current issues.
If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :
'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are some
limitations to the package concept..
Why don't developpers focus on this ?
I know that it's important to discuss theory but won't it be better to
provide something consistent ?
And when you discuss like this, it seems that nothing happens in terms
of development. For instance GDC compiler doesn't evolve quickly...
I don't see any changes in DMD compiler either.

Hi,
I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can see
so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the first
implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you
just take in account current issues.
If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :
'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are some
limitations to the package concept..
Why don't developpers focus on this ?
I know that it's important to discuss theory but won't it be better to
provide something consistent ?
And when you discuss like this, it seems that nothing happens in terms
of development. For instance GDC compiler doesn't evolve quickly...
I don't see any changes in DMD compiler either.

this is rich. no pun intended. i've seen my share of pearls on the usenet. but
this one deserves to be framed and hanged by my desk.
so we have monsieur leech here. he's not contributing any code bug reports or
even posts. his grand total of posts is six. but in fairness they include this
chef d'oeuvre. but mind you he is watching! guess we gotta be grateful for
that. so grateful that we should change preference on the subjects we choose to
discuss. we now have to chat about packages and stuff whether or not we know or
care about'em. then make proposals. then have walt implement them pronto. that
way monsieur leech can continue enjoying using the language and reading the
newsgroup. of course posting on the subject of packages would be too much
effort for monsieur leech. he'd rather just watch.
but wait, monsieur leech has even more good advice. he don't see any changes in
the dmd compiler. sorry walt. your best ain't good enuff for monsieur leech.
guess the monthly releases, wads of bugfixes with each of'em and the
neckbreaking evolution of d2 don't count.
now if you'll excuse me. i have to prepare a post on the subpackage access
subject.

Vincent Richomme Wrote:
this is rich. no pun intended. i've seen my share of pearls on the usenet. but
this one deserves to be framed and hanged by my desk.

he's not contributing any code bug reports or even posts.
My contribution : a D compiler for Windows CE/Pocket PC
http://www.smartmobili.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=41
his grand total of posts is six.
Now it's 7
but in fairness they include this chef d'oeuvre. but mind you he is
watching!
guess we gotta be grateful for that.
so grateful that we should change preference on the subjects we choose
to discuss.
we now have to chat about packages and stuff whether or not we know or
care about'em.
then make proposals. then have walt implement them pronto.
that way monsieur leech can continue enjoying using the language and
reading the newsgroup.
of course posting on the subject of packages would be too much effort
for monsieur leech.
he'd rather just watch.

but wait, monsieur leech has even more good advice.
he don't see any changes in the dmd compiler. sorry walt.
your best ain't good enuff for monsieur leech.
guess the monthly releases,
wads of bugfixes with each of'em and the neckbreaking evolution of d2 don't
count.

Sorry but actually I am watching GDC compiler and I don't know enough
about dmd.

now if you'll excuse me. i have to prepare a post on the subpackage access
subject.

now yer talkin'. i could even understand it tho mon francais est pire.

his grand total of posts is six.
Now it's 7
but in fairness they include this chef d'oeuvre. but mind you he is
watching!
guess we gotta be grateful for that.
so grateful that we should change preference on the subjects we choose
to discuss.
we now have to chat about packages and stuff whether or not we know or
care about'em.
then make proposals. then have walt implement them pronto.
that way monsieur leech can continue enjoying using the language and
reading the newsgroup.
of course posting on the subject of packages would be too much effort
for monsieur leech.
he'd rather just watch.

but wait, monsieur leech has even more good advice.
he don't see any changes in the dmd compiler. sorry walt.
your best ain't good enuff for monsieur leech.
guess the monthly releases,
wads of bugfixes with each of'em and the neckbreaking evolution of d2 don't
count.

Sorry but actually I am watching GDC compiler and I don't know enough
about dmd.

Hi,
I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can see
so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the first
implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you
just take in account current issues.
If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :
'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are some
limitations to the package concept..
Why don't developpers focus on this ?

It's a problem, people see and understand, but there is nothing else we
can do.

I know that it's important to discuss theory but won't it be better to
provide something consistent ?

One of the reason holywars are so popular because everyone has its own
"religion", he is comfortable with it and sure that he is absolutely
right. There is a large place for debate. :)

And when you discuss like this, it seems that nothing happens in terms
of development. For instance GDC compiler doesn't evolve quickly...
I don't see any changes in DMD compiler either.

These are mostly single-person projects and it looks like people are
somewhat unwanted there.
OTOH, llvmdc is having great progress in development, more open and more
promising.

Hi,
I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can
see so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the first
implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you
just take in account current issues.
If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :
'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are some
limitations to the package concept..
Why don't developpers focus on this ?

It's a problem, people see and understand, but there is nothing else we
can do.

See, understand, and agree. But people sitting around and agreeing
doesn't take as much space as people sitting around and arguing.

Hi,
I am watching this newsgroup everyday and it's like a drug but I can
see so many discussions about implementation, performances, ...
The problem is as D user I just want a good language and if the
first
implementation is not very fast I don't give a f..
It seems your are talking about what could be done but why don't you
just take in account current issues.
If you look a few posts before mine you could see for instance :
'package' and access from subpackages.., it seems that there are
some limitations to the package concept..
Why don't developpers focus on this ?

It's a problem, people see and understand, but there is nothing else
we can do.

See, understand, and agree. But people sitting around and agreeing
doesn't take as much space as people sitting around and arguing.

We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is
to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")
<g>

We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is
to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.

Mucking around with GCC is an absolute mess (doubly true on windows). Not
that I'm disagreeing with you, though. FWIW, a D compiler written in a
better language (like D!) would be great for trying things out, but I
suppose that's just stating the obvious ;) (BTW, What is LLVM written in?
C++, I assume? Haven't really had a chance to look into it yet.)

We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is
to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.

Mucking around with GCC is an absolute mess (doubly true on windows). Not
that I'm disagreeing with you, though. FWIW, a D compiler written in a
better language (like D!) would be great for trying things out, but I
suppose that's just stating the obvious ;) (BTW, What is LLVM written in?
C++, I assume? Haven't really had a chance to look into it yet.)

LLVM is written in a tasteful subset of C++. That's how its writers put
it, at least.

We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have
left is to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.

Mucking around with GCC is an absolute mess (doubly true on windows).
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, though. FWIW, a D compiler written
in a better language (like D!) would be great for trying things out,
but I suppose that's just stating the obvious ;) (BTW, What is LLVM
written in? C++, I assume? Haven't really had a chance to look into it=

yet.)=20

=20
LLVM is written in a tasteful subset of C++. That's how its writers put=

We agree on many things but when we can't change DMD all we have left is
to argue over the details (some of us think this is "fun")

You can always change gdc, which is based on dmd, to try things out.

Mucking around with GCC is an absolute mess (doubly true on windows). Not
that I'm disagreeing with you, though. FWIW, a D compiler written in a
better language (like D!) would be great for trying things out, but I
suppose that's just stating the obvious ;) (BTW, What is LLVM written in?
C++, I assume? Haven't really had a chance to look into it yet.)

Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all. The
instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
being introduced to d). From there, for the vast majority of any
changes, you wouldn't even have to look at the gcc or gcc -> dmd glue
code. You could look exclusively at the dmd frontend.
Really, it's inertia that keeps more people from playing with the
compiler than the actually difficulty of compiling it.
Later,
Brad

Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all. The
instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
being introduced to d).

You're talking Linux, right? On Linux it is supposedly not so
difficult. But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.
--bb

Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all. The
instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
being introduced to d).

You're talking Linux, right? On Linux it is supposedly not so
difficult. But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.
--bb

Yes, on linux. However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.
Later,
Brad

Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all. The
instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
being introduced to d).

You're talking Linux, right? On Linux it is supposedly not so
difficult. But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.
--bb

Yes, on linux. However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.

Could be. I think I tried with MinGW and couldn't ever get it working.
--bb

Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all. The
instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I tried
it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
being introduced to d).

You're talking Linux, right? On Linux it is supposedly not so
difficult. But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.
--bb

Yes, on linux. However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.

Could be. I think I tried with MinGW and couldn't ever get it working.
--bb

It's not that difficult because I managed to do it and I am not an
expert at all in compilation toolchain.
The question about GDC is more about who is working on it, it seems that
only one developer is contributing (Mr Friedmann) and how it progress.

Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all. The
instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I
tried
it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
being introduced to d).

You're talking Linux, right? On Linux it is supposedly not so
difficult. But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.
--bb

Yes, on linux. However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.

Could be. I think I tried with MinGW and couldn't ever get it working.
--bb

It's not that difficult because I managed to do it and I am not an expert at
all in compilation toolchain.
The question about GDC is more about who is working on it, it seems that
only one developer is contributing (Mr Friedmann) and how it progress.

Working on the dmd frontend within gdc isn't that bad at all. The
instructions on how to compile gdc were understandable last time I
tried
it (though admitedly I'd built gcc on more than one occasion prior to
being introduced to d).

You're talking Linux, right? On Linux it is supposedly not so
difficult. But the instructions are not so clear for Windows.
--bb

Yes, on linux. However, I suspect that building under cygwin is pretty
easy as well, but I haven't ever tried.

Could be. I think I tried with MinGW and couldn't ever get it working.
--bb

It's not that difficult because I managed to do it and I am not an expert at
all in compilation toolchain.
The question about GDC is more about who is working on it, it seems that
only one developer is contributing (Mr Friedmann) and how it progress.